redmid17:LasersHurt: tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?

People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

StoPPeRmobile:I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.

Many moons ago, pre-TSA, someone from work was going on a business trip. Some of the guys in the shop thought it would be amusing to cut a handgun silhouette from thin sheetmetal and slip it into the side of his briefcase where it would go undetected until laid on the carryon x-ray scanner. Everyone, including airport security (LAX) was (were?) highly amused.

/Have a meeting with NYPD in the morning, so I'll be getting a kick thinking about this the entire time.

Frederf:StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.

Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.

WSJ article: "Officials said in its current form, the machine could be mounted on a truck and deployed to sites identified as prone to gun violence."

Same article says this boxy thing is a prototype that cost "multimillions" and the goal is something small enough for cops to wear on their belts. Also, there are no plans to deploy this technology yet. City is still talking to its lawyers about how to use it without running afoul of the 4th Amendment.

I would have figured out the legal aspect before sinking millions into the technology, but I don't have access to DoD funds.

Use of this device could be justified in a Terry stop, in which cops have a "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." NYPD has been relying on Terry for its stop-and-frisk practice.

But scanning every passerby for weapons is never going to fly. "Reasonable suspicion" must be attached to a specific person for specific, articulable reason(s). Cops can't just say everyone in the neighborhood is suspicious because there have been shootings.

StoPPeRmobile:Frederf: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.

Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.

The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.

Rincewind53:WalkingCarpet: In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that warrantless use of thermal imaging cameras when used to see if a house is emitting too much heat (indicating a grow operation) is a 4th Amendment violation. Does the NYPD really think the warrantless use of terahertz scanning technology to detect metal items hidden in people's clothing is constitutional?

Nope. This will last about one arrest. Probably the ACLU already has the motion for injunction written and just waiting for a date stamp.

BronyMedic:The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.

Congress didn't seem to have any problems passing laws covering the telegraph, the telephone, radio, tv, movies, cell phones, computers, and the internet.

Also, the Constitution doesn't really need to be tweaked for the modern age. It covers basic concepts of how our government is constructed and Rights, not ever changing methods of violating those Rights. So when they say, "secure in your person", they farking mean it no matter how you intend to poke around a person's private affairs.

russsssman:I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.

In Arizona, they don't have to be breaking the law, the police can say "papers please" for any reason at all.

sheep snorter:Sales of a new product to skyrocket. Its a piece of metal in a gun shape. Used to harass the fark out of the police scanners and the more skilled individuals can place it into unsuspecting peoples pockets or purses.

/Oh the bump and stuff(opposite of the bump and pull) on the subway is going to be that much more fun.

You Idiots:You liberalsLeftists are getting exactly the police state you deservedeeply desire, have planned for, and have been building for over 100 years.

The current batch of online neo-Progressive shiat-disturbers are merely the latest in a long line of criminals. They may not all be aware of the history of their own movement, but this police-state agenda goes way back.

If this quote "with the shape of a hidden gun clearly visible under his clothing when viewed through the device" was referring to the pic provided I obviously have a different definition of 'clearly visible' than the NYPD.

Abacus9:russsssman: I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.

In Arizona, they don't have to be breaking the law, the police can say "papers please" for any reason at all.

Well that is a complete lie. It is a secondary. Law in az. There must be a primary cause for stop. But what are facts to liberals.

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.

The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.

The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Fair enough. Taking aside houses/grow operations, would it be a violation of the 4th to use an IR camera to catch someone trespassing? i.e. A helicopter using IR sees someone violating the law that the pilot would not have been able to otherwise see, can the officer act on it?

/don't go all derp, I'm a gun owning conservative. No agenda I'm trying to get to, not trying to "trick" anyone into a gotcha//I just don't see the difference; doesn't mean I'm in favor or against///trying to get data before making an opinion

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.

The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Fair enough. Taking aside houses/grow operations, would it be a violation of the 4th to use an IR camera to catch someone trespassing? i.e. A helicopter using IR sees someone violating the law that the pilot would not have been able to otherwise see, can the officer act on it?

/don't go all derp, I'm a gun owning conservative. No agenda I'm trying to get to, not trying to "trick" anyone into a gotcha//I just don't see the difference; doesn't mean I'm in favor or against///trying to get data before making an opinion

Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?

Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?

Why do they need to violate the 4th amendment to test their equipment? Can they not view their own police department to test it out? Also, the criminal, if detected wouldn't be able to use a 4th amendment defense because it was not his property that was violated, however the owner should be able to sue the department for the infringement.

Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?

The problem is when they are "testing new equipment" every damn night of the year.

As for what do the police do? Same thing they do now, nothing. Because they have donuts to eat.

BronyMedic:StoPPeRmobile: Frederf: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.

Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.

The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.

They don't need to. Secure in your person. Same today as it has ever been. farking laziness and fear drive change like this.